As I look on my bookshelf I have books entitled “Difficulties in the Bible” and “Hard Sayings of the Bible” and “The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” and “Is the Bible True?” and “Is God a Moral Monster?” and “Why I am a Christian” and “The Complete Book of Bible Answers” and many others. By their titles alone, what is a common theme we see among them? I would say “Defense.” With each of these titles the authors are taking a defensive posture regarding Christianity. The author of the book entitled “Difficulties in the Bible” is responding to those who have a “difficulty” with some of what the Bible says. Another book admits to there being “Hard Sayings” in the Bible. Another book is a virtual “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties seeking to respond to those who have questions and objections to the Bible, and so on.
I believe in each of these books. I have spent the last 18ish years of my life studying apologetics, providing intellectual reasons for Christianity, and attempting to respond to questions and objections that others have. In fact, I think that if we don’t respond to questions, then we are disobeying parts of the Bible (1 Peter 3:15, Jude 22, etc.). However, I am pondering something regarding these titles: Why are Christians always the ones on the defensive? Why is it that we are the ones writing the books responding to difficulties with our worldview? I certainly do believe that we have good responses and that we should make those responses, but Christianity is not the only worldview that must respond to difficulties. Every worldview has difficulties. Every worldview must respond to difficult questions. Where are the books, for example, entitled “An Encyclopedia of Atheistic Difficulties” or “Difficulties with Atheism” or “8 Difficulties with Non-Christian Worldviews.”
Atheism, for example, has numerous difficulties as a worldview. One need not even provide a case for Christianity; simply ask the atheist a few questions. Here is a list of a few issues/questions that give the atheistic worldview difficulty:
- How does, literally, everything come from, literally, nothing (“nothing” in the philosophical sense contra Hawkings’ “nothing” of some quantum vacuum)?
- How do moral values that look objective come from “nothing” which is non-moral? Or, how does a purely naturalistic universe produce Real, Objective moral values such as, “It’s wrong to torture children for the fun of it” (which most people can “see” as objectively wrong at all times).
- How does the atheist explain that we can “see” that torturing children for the fun of it is objectively wrong and that we can “see” that helping an old lady across the street is objectively right?
- How does an unguided, blind, nothingness in the universe bring about such beauty (rose, mountain, ocean, newborn, etc.) and complexity (cell, solar system, photosynthesis, etc.)?
- How does conscious life (mostly humans, but the animals as well) come from that which is non-conscious (nothing)?
- How does philosophical naturalism (atheism, etc.) adequately explain this irrepressible human desire to be “religious”? Religion has been found in every culture that has ever existed. Where does this belief in the transcendent or this seeking for that which is not seen come from?
These questions represent just some of the issues that atheism, for example, has difficulty with. Certainly there are responses from atheists for each of these questions, but we must simply make ourselves aware that Christians are not the only ones who need to be responding to objections and questions about their worldview.
Thank you for taking the time to so thoroughly respond to my comment.
Let me first address the excellent philosophical questions at the end of your comment. My answer to all your questions is: I don’t know. But I must ask this question: Just because a particular worldview claims to have all the answers for life’s biggest and hardest questions, does that necessarily make that worldview true? No. And the converse: If a worldview does not claim to know all the answers, does that necessarily make that worldview false? I would suggest that it does not.
I am not afraid to admit that my worldview does not have the answers to all of life’s questions.
You said: “Simply saying that “the majority of scholarship says the gospels cannot have been written early” does not make it so. One must provide reasons that the gospels were written later.”
No. That is not correct. I am not a scholar. I am not expert. Our culture does not require me to research every issue under the sun in order to hold a position on those issues. That would be impossible for any one human to do. Our culture believes that it is perfectly acceptable for me to defer to expert consensus opinion on all these issues. I am allowed to appeal to consensus expert opinion on all issues about which I am not an expert. For instance, if someone wants to debate me on whether or not the earth is flat, I do not need to do my own research. I can appeal to consensus expert opinion. And the same is true regarding climate change. I do not need to do my own research on this issue. I can appeal to consensus expert opinion. And the same is true with the Covid pandemic. I do not need to spend months on the internet studying to make up my own mind if Covid is true or a hoax. I can simply appeal to consensus expert opinion. That is what educated people do in our culture.
So, no. I do not need to look at your research or anyone else’s research on the dating and authorship of the Gospels. I can simply appeal to consensus expert opinion. The fact that you have spent many hours examining the evidence does not make you an expert. Your non-expert opinion is of no more value than my non-expert opinion. Even if you were a Bible scholar and held the minority position on the authorship and the dating of the Gospels, I would still be justified by the standards of our culture to ignore your opinion.
Trust consensus expert opinion on ALL issues, my friend.
The authorship and dating of the Gospels is disputed. That is not in dispute.
Is it rational to believe in the reality of virgin births, water walking, and corpse reanimation based upon disputed eyewitness testimony found in 2,000 year old texts whose dating and authorship is disputed?? I say, no. And I believe that most Christians would have the same reaction to anyone make similar claims today.
Gary, thank you for your comments. You said, “Is it rational to believe in the reality of virgin births, water walking, and corpse reanimation based upon disputed eyewitness testimony found in 2,000 year old texts whose dating and authorship is disputed?? I say, no. And I believe that most Christians would have the same reaction to anyone make similar claims today.”
First, we have to define “rational” in this sense and then we have to think about the term “disputed.” Miracles are only rational in a universe where God exists. If God does not exist, then we live in a universe where it is less rational to believe in miracles. So, it depends on what knowledge one has (or does not have) to provide evidence for God’s existence, and it also depends on one’s knowledge of at least the best-reported claims of miracles in history and today. For example, Craig Keener’s 2 volumes entitled “Miracles” includes only the best-reported miracles in history up to today. If just one miracle is true, then pure philosophical naturalism (upon which atheism is based), then atheism is false since that shows there is something “more” than just the physical world. So, one would have to show that the standard arguments for God’s existence, all things being equal, are less plausible than not, and that 1 miracle has never happened. It’s impossible, I think, to show the second claim, for certain, and difficult to disprove the first claim. So, when we speak of whether miracles are “rational” or not (dead rising, walking on water, etc.), we must see what is first in our background of knowledge.
Now, you actually asked whether it is “rational” to “believe in the reality of virgin births, water walking, and corpse reanimation based upon disputed eyewitness testimony found in 2,000 year old texts whose dating and authorship is disputed??” We have to define “disputed” here. Disputed by whom? Disputed to what extent? Which parts of the texts are disputed? How much/to what extent are the texts “disputed,” meaning, are we off by 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? I know this: The documents in the New Testament (the Gospels, particularly) are the best historical documents we have about Jesus of Nazareth, all claims of it being a “divine book” aside. Historically, they are the best because they are the closest and they were written, at least within the claims of church history, by eyewitnesses or associates of eyewitnesses. Again, much of this comes down to evidences and to what extent certain types of evidences can be substantiated.
Gary,
Again, I appreciate your interaction here with me. I always appreciate the dialogue. Let me work through some of your responses.
You say, “Let me first address the excellent philosophical questions at the end of your comment. My answer to all your questions is: I don’t know. But I must ask this question: Just because a particular worldview claims to have all the answers for life’s biggest and hardest questions, does that necessarily make that worldview true? No. And the converse: If a worldview does not claim to know all the answers, does that necessarily make that worldview false? I would suggest that it does not.”
Billy: I appreciate your honesty in answering “I don’t know.” My “gut” reaction to you with that response is this: “Does the fact that you ‘don’t know’ the answer to my philosophical questions at the end of my article bother you at all, or at least a little bit?”
And I agree that a worldview can claim to have answers, and still be false. A worldview can Claim anything, but can those claims be substantiated with proper evidence? So, I agree with you there.
And in principle I would say that it’s possible that a worldview which provides no answers could be true, but I don’t know if I would be convinced of that worldview. If a worldview has very little to zero actual and practical explanatory power, then we’d have good reason to doubt the claims of that worldview. If it does not align at all with reality or if it does not bear witness to anything true in our experience, then how convincing is it really? We believe certain propositions based upon the good reasons to believe it, and if, for example, atheism cannot answer (or does not have good responses to) some of life’s central questions, then why should one be convinced to believe it?
You say, “I am allowed to appeal to consensus expert opinion on all issues about which I am not an expert.”
Billy: I agree, usually, with this principle, unless there are good reasons to not believe consensus, expert opinion. The very nature of research, the very nature of science, is that it all can be questioned and that new research (or, overlooked research that has existed for some time) can overturn “consensus” opinion. I have a good reason to believe in an earlier, rather than a later date, for the gospels. Until I have some good reasons to believe otherwise, then I shall continue to hold my beliefs about it. Besides, “consensus” that is both loud and numerable does not convince, but only reasons and evidence alone.
You say, ” The fact that you have spent many hours examining the evidence does not make you an expert. Your non-expert opinion is of no more value than my non-expert opinion.”
I based my evidence (which I’ve presented to you) on those who are experts in the field. So I speak not on my own authority and not on my own “hours of study,” but on those who have spent their lives studying these issues. The evidence for an early date is believed by “big players” in the field of New Testament scholarship and is to be taken seriously.
Billy: Just my own curiosity, can you name 3 scholars who hold to a late dating of the New Testament gospels? If you cannot, that is ok. I am aware that there are some that do hold to a late date, but I do know that it is not all, and I do know that there are good reasons to believe an earlier date rather than a later date.
Probably the weakest link in the Christian apologist’s argument for the historicity of the Resurrection is this: The view that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or by their close associates. This view is a minority position in modern New Testament scholarship. In reality, only evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant scholars hold this position. Even most Roman Catholic scholars, who very much believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the supernatural, and miracles, reject the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels. See this link:
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/
Imagine a defense attorney appearing in court, presenting a case using minority expert opinion as a defense. The prosecution would rip his case to shreds when they demonstrate to the court that the defense attorney’s “experts” are considered to be outliers…fringe
Gary,
I appreciate you weighing in on my blog post and you make a good point that stands if the evidence holds up: “If the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses or associates of eyewitnesses, then do we still have good reason to trust the reliability of the gospel accounts including the resurrection of Jesus Christ?” That looks to be the point you are making. Feel free to correct me if that does not represent what you are saying.
I did read the article in the link you posted and I did see a few points, but mostly what I saw was assertions that “the gospels cannot be early” or “the majority of scholarship says the gospel cannot have been written early.” First, an assertion is not an argument, it is merely an assertion. Simply saying that “the majority of scholarship says the gospels cannot have been written early” does not make it so. One must provide reasons that the gospels were written later.
On the other hand, let me give you a very short article that gives a brief argument for an early date for the gospels. https://www.str.org/w/a-short-argument-for-early-dating-of-the-gospels Basically, it is an argument for an early date of the gospels based upon the death of Paul. Since almost every scholar believes that Mark was written first, and that John was written last, and that Matthew and Luke were written between those two (and have much in common among them), one can look at the end of Acts and notice that Paul’s death is not mentioned, which would put Acts at around the 63ish date. If Acts is at 63, then Luke (which was written before Acts, by Luke) must be earlier than even 63, which would also put Matthew and Luke (and certainly Mark) must earlier. Now, just because a document is early does not mean it is reliable, but it is a better reason to think it is reliable than not unless there are reasons given to question its reliability.
Another Point: Even if the gospels were written late and/or were not written by eyewitnesses or close associates, that does not, necessarily, mean that the gospel accounts are false. It simply means they are late and not written by eyewitnesses. We can look at some of the writings of Paul, for example, that predate even some of the gospels, and still can infer that Christ is risen from those documents. The resurrection still exists in the literature before the gospels and before 70AD, and even around the 30sAD (1 Corinthians 15:3-8, for example, many believe to be an early hymn (or confession) which proclaims Christ risen just a few years after the event itself. So, even if the gospels were destroyed, you’d still have to deal with the other writings of the New Testament, especially Paul.
Final Point: Even if one could show Christianity to have difficulties as you’ve mentioned above, that still does not negate the difficulties that atheism, for example, has. The questions I ask about atheism stands even if there is a poor case for Christianity to be true. Again, every worldview has difficulties, the question is, which worldview are we willing to live with (with it’s difficulties) the most? Here are the questions I posted above:
1. How does, literally, everything come from, literally, nothing (“nothing” in the philosophical sense contra Hawkings’ “nothing” of some quantum vacuum)?
2. How do moral values that look objective come from “nothing” which is non-moral? Or, how does a purely naturalistic universe produce Real, Objective moral values such as, “It’s wrong to torture children for the fun of it” (which most people can “see” as objectively wrong at all times).
3.How does the atheist explain that we can “see” that torturing children for the fun of it is objectively wrong and that we can “see” that helping an old lady across the street is objectively right?
4.How does an unguided, blind, nothingness in the universe bring about such beauty (rose, mountain, ocean, newborn, etc.) and complexity (cell, solar system, photosynthesis, etc.)?
5.How does conscious life (mostly humans, but the animals as well) come from that which is non-conscious (nothing)?
6.How does philosophical naturalism (atheism, etc.) adequately explain this irrepressible human desire to be “religious”? Religion has been found in every culture that has ever existed. Where does this belief in the transcendent or this seeking for that which is not seen come from?